United States District Court, E.D. New York
Johnny Caldwell, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fitzgerald, GA.
For Defendants: No appearances.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge.
On September 10, 2014, then-incarcerated pro se plaintiff Johnny Caldwell (" Plaintiff") filed an in forma pauperis Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") against five attorneys, Holly Myer, Esq. (" Myer"), John Doe, Esq. (" Doe"), Christopher C. Brocato, Esq. (" Brocato"), William Sammis, Esq. (" Sammis"), and Robert Dapelo, Esq. (" Dapelo" and collectively, " Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons that follow, the Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff's sparse handwritten Complaint, submitted on a Section 1983 complaint form, complains that Defendants, who are all alleged to be attorneys related to Plaintiff's underlying state court criminal case, deprived him of his constitutional right to due process of law. (Compl. at 3.) The Complaint is bereft of any factual allegations and is wholly comprised of conclusory assertions. The Statement of Facts, in its entirety, reads as follows:
On and about April 10th 2013, In the Criminal District Court during Criminal Procedures the Plaintiff did suffer violations of his guaranteed Constitutional Rights at the hands of several Attorney's who worked for different agencies who purported as agents of the Court and Court officers committed nonfeasance act towards the Plaintiff and denied the Plaintiff access to the Courts which clearly violated his due process of the law to the present date under the 14th amendment, and by these actions did cause the Plaintiff duress, hardship, mental anguish and Emotional Distress.
(Compl. at 3.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action. The First Cause of Action, in its entirety, alleges that:
The plaintiff demands and seeks monetary damage relief from the defendants, Holly Myer, esq., John Doe, esq., Christopher C. Brocato esq., William Sammis esq. and Robert Dapelo Esq. for violations of his guaranteed Civil Constitutional Rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right as a pretrial detainee. The Plaintiff suffered duress, hardship and distress. The Plaintiff seeks one million dollars.
(Compl. at 4.) The Second Cause of Action, in its entirety, alleges that:
The plaintiff demands compensatory damage relief from the defendants, Holly Myer esq., John Doe, esq., Christopher C. Brocato esq., William Sammis esq. and Robert Dapelo esq., for the violation of his first amendment to redress and grieve all of his Court proceeding while his attorney who was court appointed did in fact creat and committed a non-Feasance act against the plaintiff. The plaintiff demands one million Dollars.
(Compl. at 5.) Finally, as a Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that:
The plaintiff demands and seeks puntive damage relief from each of the defendants, Holly Myer esq., John Doe, esq., Christopher C. Brocato esq., William Sammis esq. and Robert Dapelo esq. for the violations of his guaranteed Civil Constitutional Rights that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment due process of the Law which was clearly violated by the defendants Holly Myer esq., John Doe, esq., Christopher C. Brocato esq. William Sammis esq. and Robert Dapelo esq. while purporting to act under Color of State Law to do their duties ...